We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vislink | VLK | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 17.375 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17.375 | 17.375 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 20/10/2016 13:27 by nick rubens This is great news going forward as the plan was to advance the pebble beach side and sell the hardware side as sales were slowing.All we need now is for Mr H to step down after this deal is conluded within the next couple of months. I'm looking to add if we get a dip below 12p but I doubt it will happen, so will have to bite the bullet and add at higher price as I think investors will come back for the medium/longer term growth story in pebble beach. |
Posted at 04/10/2016 13:37 by gaustin Meijiman - I can't quite see what punishment the CEO is receiving for wrong doing given the vast compensation packages the board have been receiving.In fact the board seem to have been well rewarded for loosing the company / investors a rather large amount of money |
Posted at 30/9/2016 13:25 by diku The larger investors are fast asleep at the wheel is the normal...that is the problem not just here but across the PLC casino markets....too much is just accepted at face value what the insiders are saying....after all they are playing with other peoples money!... |
Posted at 30/9/2016 12:15 by smithie6 " Quite why the larger investors allowed all this to pass begars belief."indeed, good point. --- btw....if people read my analsis of 18-24 months ago you will see me warning about the bad performance of the comms division..repeating, not just a one off....and noting the on going reduction in staff numbers....ie. they did not expect a turn around..(and that imho the valuation of the software part was not enough to hold up the overall stk mkt capitalisation)...an |
Posted at 30/9/2016 12:05 by gaustin TW has been pretty scathing of VLK management in the past and I expect nothing different this time around.It seems quite clear that the board have had great difficulty aligning their interests with those of the shareholders and in pushing lots of costs through as restructuring / exceptional. The VCP / move to AIM and the large compensation packages have all been completely unjustified. I don't think that I have seen anything terribly good written about Hawkins et al and yet despite PI protest they have stuck their heads down and carried on rewarding themselves unreasonably. Quite why the larger investors allowed all this to pass begars belief. Bring on the tumbril. |
Posted at 30/9/2016 10:00 by smithie6 Lessons for PIs to learn from Vislinkall imho a) if dirs. are filling their own pockets too much wrt shareholders or the company.... then get out....in 90% of cases it turns out badly b) read and understand the accounts and numbers and if you dont or cant then perhaps you are better to invest in a fund where the mgrs do understand the numbers and have a good track record. YOu might pay 2%/year but if the mgrs are good then it is a fair-cheap price to pay perhaps unless you are an experienced-good investor. c) give priority to numbers and low priority to blah blah blah !! For many companies the blah blah blah is blatant lies. London mkts, corrupt and unregulated imho. d) see point b) !! e) 'invest in good sectors' & where the company has barriers to protect sales and margins Vislink did not meet that requirement. Most of turnover being from hardware sales in a competitive global market with much bigger companies in the USA and cheaper costs in many other countries. |
Posted at 13/7/2016 12:01 by 1fox1 Major shareholders in May 2016 Nick. Shows Morton has an interest.hxxp://investors.vis |
Posted at 22/5/2016 12:53 by investoree At the Vislink AGM on 20th May 2016 there were only a handful of Private Investors (PIs) present at the meeting, in addition to the Board of Directors (BOD) along with previous Pebble Beach management. To summarize: John Hawkins presented a fairly slick verbal presentation extolling Vislink as the number one company in the sectors in which they operated, supported by strategic partnerships with Harmonic and GoPro who are two of the largest most highly regarded hardware providers. This was accompanied by a slide show during which a number of questions were raised regarding matters such as positioning the company for going after lucrative military business. This was summarily dismissed as an option as the costs of their doing so were considered prohibitive with the almost guaranteed certainty that they would not be successful. I was also somewhat surprised to learn that the chances of Vislink benefiting from picking up any further new business during the Rio Olympics this year (especially with the increasing security concerns) were downplayed and considered highly unlikely.Although not entirely convinced by some of his statements in regards to taking the company forward - mainly by bolt-on acquisitions - I didn't ask any questions having decided to wait until the main substance of the meeting was concluded and then quiz the Board regarding the structure and timing of the Value Creation Plan (VCP). Unfortunately my timing and execution were appalling as I had anticipated an opportunity under Any Other Business (AOB) unfortunately the meeting was brought to a close before I had the opportunity to raise my concerns and questions. I then spent more than an hour engaging with Directors including John Hawkins, Ian Davies and Robin Howe who claimed that they had been in extensive consultation with Vislink's major institutional shareholders who all supported the VCP. They also acknowledged that with the benefit of hindsight the manner, timing and lack of engagement with PIs regarding the VCP was unfortunate and that with the benefit of hindsight, future similar matters would undoubtedly be handled differently. It was also claimed that a large amount of management time had been taken up in fending off complaints about the VCP from PIs, both directly and indirectly, through their advisers. I explained that this situation created suspicion in the minds of some PIs that Directors appeared to be potentially awarding themselves a huge financial reward for a comparatively pedestrian performance, especially when PIs were excluded from any prior knowledge, participation or voting on the VCP's structure and implementation. This combined with the absence of any mention in the Annual Report, despite the VCP's formal announcement shortly afterwards being acceptable to HMRC when such a package should have necessitated a considerable amount of time being devoted to its structure to ensure it was fair and balanced. The Directors claimed that their financial reward was not 15.4% of the value of the company above the £85M'n market capitalisation but that it was 15.4% of the difference between the £85M'n hurdle that had to be reached and whatever any such higher value was after 3 years. Neither did they feel that my concerns of simply increasing the market capitalisation of the company by making bolt-on acquisitions funded by issuing more shares (dilution) or taking on more debt (loans), posed a greater risk than concentrating on growing the company organically. They did not seem overly concerned about the negative impact on the fall in Vislink's share price following the announcement of results and the VCP which resulted in many PIs selling all or some of their sharers, or automatically having them sold when their stop losses kicked in. It was claimed that the Institutions were happily picking up the PI shares being sold and adding to their holdings but they valued a large PI share base although it was more expensive to service. Although not entirely convinced by the Directors answers to my questions and complaints regarding their VCP, I and my partner will stick with our substantial shareholding for the foreseeable future. The above is only a summary of my understanding of the comments at the AGM long with my lengthy verbal exchange with the BOD and is not intended to influence any decisions for readers as to buying, selling, holding or adding to any shareholdings in Vislink. Please note the importance of thoroughly doing your own research before making any decisions regarding Vislink as a potential investment for the short, medium or long term. Good luck to all current and prior holdings of Vislink for the future. |
Posted at 03/2/2016 21:19 by smithie6 236k share sell trade at 22.1 penceIs the seller reading ?. ....happy to give you advice if of use, for a small % of money made or saved (assumes that person qualifies as experienced investor able to make their own decisions (such as having own account to trade in options, spread betting, CFDs), I cant take any money from non-experienced investor since Im not authorised. My website shorted at 48p on the way up and again around 60p (see tweets and posts here). Analysis to support that view is given on VLK blog page on website. I have a long list of other correct buy/sell decisions. If had sold 236k shares at 54p (approx average of my 2 short calls) it would have given 33p extra cash per share. 78k pounds.If you had paid me say 5% that would have been 3.9k pnds, a small part of the 78k pounds saved. Or a flat fee is another option. While one of my 3 buys from spring 2015 has doubled in price. If the 236k shares in VLK had been sold at 5p and put into my best pick from spring 2015 it would now be worth 127k pnds more. (ok, in reality it would have probably been spread over my 3 favourites from spring 2015 and not just into the 1 that then doubled. BUt it shows that picking good shares and ditching bad ones makes a massive difference to the value of ones shares. Fulltimeinvestors.co |
Posted at 09/7/2015 14:45 by davidosh A value creation plan for who exactly ?A week ago the company announced an executive awards scheme entitled 'Grant of Executive Directors' Awards under 2015 Value Creation Plan' The investors and shareholders I subsequently spoke to and comments on investment websites suggested we were all feeling more than a tad unhappy and frankly shocked at the timing just three weeks after the Agm. There were no attempts to discuss this with the wider share ownership even though nearly half the owners are private individual investors just like us and even the vast majority of institutions knew nothing in advance. The Board of directors did however consult with remuneration consultants...paid for by the directors but out of shareholder funds. (Note:Remuneration consultants and friendly Remcoms are the main reason for the explosion in executive director pay over the last two decades) The nominated advisers (Nomads) think the scheme is fine....they are also paid by the directors once again from shareholder funds. The corporate brokers knew about the scheme and 'apparently' spoke to larger shareholders about it. They are not obliged to speak to individual investors and the Remcom chairman in the brokers words 'did not know we existed !' the brokers are paid by the directors out of shareholder funds. That begs the question ...so how could they have communicated anything before the RNS ?...'Well, the Agm would have been a good place to start with'.... the executive directors are all paid to communicate on a regular basis with shareholders and particularly at an Agm. That is often the only time in the whole year that the owners (we the shareholders) have the chance to engage with our directors...our employees ! Good companies actually consult with and seek the approval of ALL their shareholder base for schemes like these and nearly every company scheme that I have come across has far tougher targets and hurdles to meet and has issued (or will issue) far less, as a percentage of the company shares, to the recipients. I am not sure what makes Vislink so special that their scheme should be so accommodating and rewarding for these three executives as the directors are already rewarded handsomely in the top 5% on AIM... without needing this supposed incentive on top ! Here is an example at another company called Latchways (LTC) which put the whole scheme up for shareholder vote and the hurdles were so challenging that after the end of the period the directors sadly did not receive any payment at all. Proof that a good scheme can be challenging and rewarding but there are many to be found if you search... By amazing coincidence... The non executive directors at Vislink who agreed all this without our vote or agreement have just been awarded 33% annual salary increases which are paid for by us once again as shareholders. It is worth checking the Annual report on remuneration for many interesting facts and non standard ways to pay bonuses including contra payments with HMRC settlements. Once again paid for by shareholders it seems ! The list goes on.... Private shareholders are totally disrespected in this scenario. I fully accept that we cannot be consulted on everything but did the Board really think we would all sit back and dream of Vislink doubling in value and happily then give away nearly £10m to just three directors for doing something that they are currently very handsomely rewarded for already?? How do they think the hardworking hundreds of employees will see those payments to the top whilst they see none of it in their pay packets? The Executive Chairmans package in 2014 was £742k plus ! Top 3% on AIM already but going for the moon .... By contrast.. The eps and adjusted eps was actually flat in that period but in Pebble Beach they have made a company saving acquisition IMO. Here is the AR...hxxp://investor Anyway along with a few other dedicated shareholders an action plan was mounted to raise awareness of this 'Value Creation Plan' and we want as many Vislink shareholders as possible to record their views about this scheme... www.freesharedata.co There has been an incredible wave of shareholder angst and discontent with the scheme and already 130 shareholders have recorded their views. Our strong group depend on fellow investors and, if necessary and with confidence, we can call an EGM and put the whole scheme and possibly other resolutions to the vote for ALL shareholders to decide. As a shareholder in Vislink I do not want distress and I prefer constructive dialogue and mutual respect from management. I can report that the Vislink Remcom chairman has now agreed to meet with me in two weeks time on Friday 24th July. If any of you are remuneration experts or keen to join me at the meeting then do email me by replying to this post. Hopefully our stance will also serve as a warning to other companies especially small sub £150m market cap that depend on smallcap funds and private investors to provide liquidity for the stock. We should be respected. There is an Annual General Meeting each year for a reason and ALL shareholders are entitled to attend. Why not offer presentations and discuss award schemes that you intend to introduce in the course of the year with the owners ? Failure to communicate and then presenting shocking schemes announced days after Agms will be met with anger as you can see here so clearly... www.freesharedata.co Sharesoc (www.sharesoc.org) are ready to back a full Press and Media campaign if necessary and we shall see how the Remcom chairman explains his actions to shareholders at the meeting. It is not practical for shareholders to mount action in the holiday months of July and August but the directors know exactly where we stand now. Remcoms in similar situations have been warned. David Twitter @carmensfella |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
